By Michael R. Tancredi
Michael R. Tancredi is a third-year student at Albany Law School. He grew up in Hunter, NY, and graduated from the University of Vermont with majors in political science and history. After receiving his bachelor's degree, he chose to immediately begin his legal education in Albany.
While attending law school, Michael interned with the New York State Division of Veteran's Services, reviewing state legislation and assisting veterans in obtaining state benefits and assistance. Upon graduation, Michael hopes to move to New York City and pursue a legal career in public service.
This paper analyzes the morally fraught dichotomy between enemy combatants and non-combatants in a Post-Vietnam War world. The blurred lines encompassed by this juxtaposition are further complicated by the evolution of classical insurgency into the contemporary understanding of terrorism. The nature of modern conflict has produced competing approaches to the principle of discrimination, competing approaches that require that all parties to an armed conflict distinguish between civilians and combatants when conducting military operations.
Can the U.S. approach of discrimination rise to a reasonable basis of distinction between enemy combatant and civilian, or is a more narrowly tailored approach needed? Is self-defense a rational justification for unmeasured drone strikes against Middle-East villages suspected of formerly harboring enemy combatants? These are the topics and issues this paper addresses, through both a historical and pragmatic lens.
______________________
To read the paper, open HERE.
